India, High Court of Bombay
Available documents (23)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
India / 30 April 2020 / India, High Court of Bombay / Banyan Tree Growth Capital L.L.C. v. Axiom Cordages Limited, Responsive Industries Limited and Wellknown Business Ventures LLP / Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 476 of 2019 and No. 475 of 2019
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 30 April 2020 Parties Banyan Tree Growth Capital L.L.C. v. Axiom Cordages Limited, Responsive Industries Limited and Wellknown Business Ventures LLP Case number Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 476 of 2019 and No. 475 of 2019 Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6377&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 18 November 2019 Parties Nobel Resource Ltd. v. Dharni Sampda Private Ltd. Case number Notice No. 928 of 2017 in Execution Application No. 25 of 2017 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5814&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 16 October 2019 Parties Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Prize Petroleum Company Ltd. v. M3nergy (M) Sdn. Bhd. Case number Com. Appeal No. 317 of 2019 in Com. Arbitration Petition No. 76 of 2018, Appeal No. 333 of 2019 in Arbitration Petition No. 548 of 2014 and Com. Appeal No. 348 of 2019 in Com. Arb. Petition No. 1101 of 2018 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(a) Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5815&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 07 January 2019 Parties Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.r.I. v. Vijay Karia & Ors. Case number Arbitration Petition No. 442 of 2017 Applicable NYC Provisions V Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5620&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 01 March 2018 Parties Prabodh K. Mehta v. Charuben K. Mehta Case number First Appeal No. 922 of 2013 in Charity Application No. 10 of 2013 with First Appeal No. 923 of 2013 in Charity Application No. 13 of 2013 Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5614&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 09 October 2017 Parties Trammo DMCC v. Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. Case number Commercial Arbitration Petition (Lodg) No. 359 of 2017 Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5612&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 15 September 2017 Parties Katra Holdings Limited v. Corsair Investments LLC & Ors. Case number Arbitration Petition No. 436 of 2016 Applicable NYC Provisions I Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5611&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 13 October 2015 Parties Sideralba SpA v. Shree Precoated Steels Ltd Case number Arbitration Petition No. 84 of 2013 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3924&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 06 October 2015 Parties Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse S.A. v. Sakuma Exports Limited Case number Arbitration Petition No. 47 of 2015 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3925&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 08 April 2015 Parties POL India Projects Limited and other v. Aurelia Reederei Eugen Friederich GmbH Schiffahrtsgesellschaft & Company KG and other Case number Arbitration Petition No. 76 and 12 of 2012 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3927&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 28 August 2014 Parties Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt Ltd and another v. Vinod Tejraj Gowani and others Case number Arbitration Application No. 107 of 2012 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(3) Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3934&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 20 August 2014 Parties Rakesh Malhotra and others v. Rajinder Kumar Malhotra and others Case number Company Appeals (L) No. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 16, 17, 18, 19 of 2013 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3936&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 09 May 2014 Parties Perma Container (UK) Line Limited v. Perma Container Line (India) Pvt Ltd Case number Arbitration Petitions 259 and 406 of 2013 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3937&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 28 January 2014 Parties Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd v. Orient Ship Agency Pvt Ltd Case number Arbitration Petition No. 446 of 2003 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3939&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 10 May 2013 Parties Lu. Qin (Hong Kong) Company Ltd v. Conros Steels Pvt Ltd Case number Execution Application No. 492 of 2012 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | II | II(3) | V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3945&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 19 March 2013 Parties Konkola Copper Mines (PLC) v. Stewarts and Lloyds of India Limited Case number Arbitration Petition No. 160 of 2013 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3947&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 04 February 2013 Parties Louis Dreyfus Commodities Asia Pte Ltd v. Govind Rubber Limited Case number Arbitration Petition No. 174 of 2012 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3913&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 06 November 2012 Parties Masumi SA Investment LLC v. Keystone Realtors and ors Case number Company Appeal (L) No. 47 of 2012 Source http://www.judis.nic.in (website of the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Summary Masumi SA Investment LLC (“Masumi”) entered into a shareholder agreement with Keystone Realtors (“Keystone”), which provided for arbitration in Mumbai. Masumi filed a claim before the Company Law Board (“CLB”) alleging that Keystone and the other respondents had mismanaged the affairs of some of the respondent companies. The second respondent filed an application to the CLB under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (the “1996 Act”) to have the proceeding referred to arbitration. The CLB found for the second respondent and stayed the proceedings before it, referring the matter to arbitration. Masumi applied to the High Court of Bombay, seeking to appeal the decision of the CLB by relying on Section 10F of the Companies Act 1956, which, as the Court remarked, allowed “any person aggrieved by a decision or order of the Company Law Board … [to] file an appeal to the High Court”. The High Court of Bombay rejected Masumi’s application and ordered that the matter be referred to arbitration. In reaching this conclusion, the High Court relied on Section 37 of the 1996 Act, a section which the High Court considered as setting out the situations in which a court order may be appealed when concerning arbitration. Importantly, the High Court referred to Section 50 of the 1996 Act, which – the High Court remarked – “applies to international arbitration covered by New York Convention [sic]”. The High Court noted that, under Section 50 of the 1996 Act, an appeal against an order is possible only if the order refuses to refer the matter to arbitration; when the order is for the matter to be referred to arbitration, Section 50 does not allow for an appeal. The High Court used the provision in Section 50 by analogy, to illuminate the effect of Section 37. In conclusion, the High Court considered that the 1996 Act is “a self contained, complete and exhaustive code in all respects”. In the Court’s view, since Section 37 did not mention the right to appeal against an order referring parties to arbitration, no such remedy lied in the present case. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1385&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 25 January 2007 Parties JS Ocean Liner LLC v. MV Golden Progress; Abhoul Marine LLC Case number Company Appeal (L) No. 47 of 2012 Source http://www.judis.nic.in (website of the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Summary JS Ocean Liner (“JS”) had entered in a charterparty with Abhoul marine (“Abhoul”) for the charter of MV Golden Progress, a vessel owned by Abhoul. The charterparty provided for arbitration in London. JS initiated arbitration in London, claiming that the vessel did not comply with the terms of the charterparty. JS also brought an action in rem before the High Court of Bombay asking that the vessel be arrested in order to force Abhoul to compensate JS for its losses. Alternatively, JS claimed that the vessel should be arrested as a form of security for the pending arbitration proceedings in London, pursuant to Section 9, concerning interim measures, of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (the “1996 Act”). The Single Judge of the High Court found for the defendants; his decision was reversed by the Division Bench, which found for JS. The defendants appealed the decision of the Division Bench to the High Court. The High Court of Bombay dismissed the appeal, holding that the Court could entertain an action in rem for the arrest of a vessel in a situation where the parties have an arbitration agreement. At the same time, the High Court held that the vessel could not be arrested as an interim measure pursuant to Section 9 of the 1996 Act. In deciding that it nonetheless had jurisdiction to entertain the action in rem the High Court cited Section 45 of the 1996 Act (mirroring Article II(3) NYC). Commenting on the effect of Section 45 the High Court stressed that while, in circumstances where the arbitration agreement is not null and void or inoperative or incapable of being performed, a court would have no discretion but to refer the parties to arbitration, the Court also noted that it is for the court itself to decide whether an agreement to arbitrate is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. This, the High Court considered, meant that some jurisdiction remains vested in the court itself. The High Court also noted that Chapter I of Part II of the 1996 Act (Sections 44 to 52 of the 1996 Act) “deals with New York Convention Awards” and that Section 44 defines a foreign award as an arbitral award (i) in pursuance of an agreement in writing for arbitration to which the NYC applies; and (ii) in a territory which also applies the NYC, as indicated by a declaration made by the Central Government of India by way of notification in the Official Gazette. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1384&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 19 November 1999 Parties Faircot SA v. Tata SSI Ltd Source 2000 (2) BomCR 429; (2000) 1 BOMLR 525; 2000 (2) MhLj 223 | http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Summary Faircot SA (“Faircot”) entered into a contract with Tata SSI Ltd (“Tata”), which provided for arbitration of disputes under the auspices of the Liverpool Cotton Association (“LCA”). A dispute arose between the parties and Faircot initiated an arbitral proceeding. Tata did not participate in the proceeding save by sending a letter to the arbitral tribunal to inform it that it had not signed the contract and, consequently, that there was no agreement between the parties. The tribunal rendered an award in favour of Faircot, which the latter sought to enforce in India, before the High Court of Bombay. Tata resisted the award’s enforcement on the basis that the arbitrators had no jurisdiction to render the award as Tata had challenged the validity or existence of the contract. The High Court of Bombay agreed with Tata’s argument, rejecting Faircot’s application to enforce the award. The High Court considered that the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961 (the “1961 Act”) applied to the award. The Court relied on Section 7 of the 1961 Act (mirroring Article V NYC), pointing out the language “deals with the conditions for enforcement of a foreign award”. Specifically, the Court noted that one of the grounds on which the Court can decline to enforce a foreign award is that the award deals with questions not referred or contained decisions on matters beyond the scope of the agreement. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Renusagar Power Co Ltd v General Electric Company and anor, the High Court distinguished between instances where the scope of the arbitration agreement is in dispute and instances where the validity of the contract containing the agreement is in dispute. With respect to the former case (i.e. whether a dispute fell within the scope of the agreement to arbitrate), the High Court held that an arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction to make a tentative determination, which is subject to a challenge before a court pursuant to Section 7 of the 1961 Act. In contrast, the Court held, an arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the issue of the existence or validity of the contract which contains the arbitration agreement. The High Court found that in the present case the arbitral tribunal had lacked jurisdiction to make the award as the validity or existence of the contract containing the agreement to arbitrate had been challenged. Finally, the Court rejected Faircot’s argument that English law (the law of the seat of the arbitration) would be applicable in deciding whether a matter was beyond the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction, holding that the question would be resolved by applying Indian law. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1369&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 12 October 1989 Parties Renusagar Power Company v. General Electric Company Source 1990 (1) BomCR 561; (1990) 92 BOMLR 70 | http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Summary Renusagar Power Co Ltd (“Renusagar”) entered into a contract General Electric Company (“General Electric”), which provided for arbitration under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) in Paris. A dispute arose and General Electric referred the matter to arbitration. An award was rendered in General Electric’s favour, which General Electric sought to enforce in India. The Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay granted enforcement of the award, a decision which Renusagar appealed to the High Court of Bombay. The High Court of Bombay dismissed Renusagar’s appeal, ordering that the award be enforced. The High Court emphasised that the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961 (the “1961 Act”) had been drawn up to give effect to the NYC. The Court rejected all three arguments advanced by Renusagar. The first of Renusagar’s arguments was that enforcement of the award would be contrary to public policy because the award ordered Renusagar to pay compound interest which was unlawful under Indian law. In rejecting this argument, the Court applied Section 7(1)(b)(ii) Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961 (the “1961 Act”) (mirroring Article V(2)(b) NYC). In particular, the High Court noted that the arbitrators had considered the payment of compound interest to be in consonance with the public policy of New York, whose law governed the contract. In the High Court’s view, this determination by the arbitrators was not dispositive of the issue at hand. The High Court reasoned that it is for the enforcing court itself, not the arbitrators, to determine whether enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of India, not the public policy of the place of the law governing the contract. Applying this test, the Court found that enforcement would not be contrary to the public policy of India, even though the ordering of compound interest is unlawful in India. The Court reasoned that “there is a basic distinction between what is contrary to public policy and what is contrary to our laws”. In the Court’s view, “[i]t is only when a law embodies public policy that its violation will lead to an action which is contrary to public policy”. The Indian statute prohibiting compound interest was not such a law. The second argument which the High Court rejected was that the award should not be enforced because, Renusagar argued, the award had not become “final”, as required by Section 7(1)(a)(v) of the 1961 Act (mirroring Article V(1)(e) NYC). The High Court noted that the scheme of Section 7 of the 1961 Act is biased towards enforcement, and therefore it is for the party resisting enforcement to show that one of the grounds is made out and that, in any event, the court has discretion to enforce the award. It then rejected Renusagar’s argument, stressing that the NYC departed from the Geneva Convention by only requiring that the award be “binding” and not necessarily “final”. In the High Court’s view, an award is “binding” – as the term is used in the NYC – when “no probability exists for an appeal from the award either to a court or to an arbitral tribunal”. In contrast, the Court considered an award to be “final” when “all steps for setting aside the award have either been taken and rejected or the time has expired for having the award set aside”. Turning to the award in the present case, the Court noted that there was no possible appeal against the award according to French law (the law of the seat of the arbitration) so the award was “binding”, even though – according to French law – it would still have been possible to set the award aside. The third argument which the Court rejected was that the petition filed before the Single Judge did not have a duly authenticated copy of the original award, as required by Section 8 (mirroring Article IV NYC). Although the High Court considered that the copy filed had not been duly authenticated as required by the law of the country in which the award was made, the High Court pointed out that there was no dispute that the copy of the award filed was a true copy of the original award. Further, the Court noted, a duly authenticated copy had been filed after General Electric first lodged its application. The Court concluded that any irregularity had been remedied and, consequently, that it “did not see any reason [to] intervene on account of this technical objection”. see also :
- India / 11 August 1987 / India, Supreme Court / Renusagar Power Co Ltd v. General Electric Company and anor. / Civil Appeal No. 2319 of 1986
- IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / ARTICLE IV(1)(a) / A. The requirement that the applicant provide the 'award' / ii. Dissenting opinions / §40
- IV / 2. ANALYSIS (IV) / ARTICLE IV(1)(a) / a. Governing law - (IV) / §48
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1379&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 05 November 1981 Parties European Grain and Shipping Ltd v. Bombay Extractions Ltd Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(3) Source AIR 1983 Bom 36; (1982) 84 BOMLR 246 | http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Summary Bombay Extractions Ltd (“Bombay Extractions”) entered into a contract with European Grain and Shipping Ltd (“European Grain”), which provided for arbitration in London, pursuant to the Rules of the Grain and Feed Trade Association. A dispute arose and European Grain initiated an arbitration proceeding against Bombay Extractions. The latter neither appointed its arbitrator nor participated in the arbitration proceedings in any other fashion. After an award was rendered in favour of European Grain, it sought to enforce it in India pursuant to the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961 (the “1961 Act”). The Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay refused to enforce the award on the basis that the 1961 Act was inapplicable. The Single Judge held that the legal relationship between Bombay Extractions and European Grain was not “commercial” because it had not been designated as such by a provision of law or operative legal principle in India. European Grain appealed against the decision of the Single Judge to the High Court of Bombay. The High Court of Bombay allowed the appeal, ordering the enforcement of the award and holding that a legal relationship would be “commercial” if it concerns a trading activity. In the Court’s view, the 1961 Act was implemented to give effect to the NYC. Turning to Article I(3) NYC, the Court reasoned that the term “commercial” included “a trading activity, like buying and selling, which is involved in the instant case”. According to the Court, Indian law would treat the contract in this case as a commercial agreement. Finally, the Court noted that the United Kingdom was a party to the NYC and had been notified as such by the Central Government of India (therefore there was no issue as to the reciprocal application of the NYC). see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1374&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 04 April 1977 Parties Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd v. Chemtex Fibres Inc and ors Applicable NYC Provisions I | II Source AIR 1978 Bom 106; (1979) 81 BOMLR 49 | http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Summary Chemtex Fibres Inc (“Chemtex”), together with its two subsidiaries – the second and third defendant – entered into a contract with Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd (“Indian Chemicals”), guaranteeing the performance of two other contracts which the second and third defendant had entered into with Indian Chemicals. The guarantee provided for arbitration under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) in London. The contract entered into by the second defendant and Indian Chemicals was for the supply of machinery, equipment and technical information for the installations for a polyester plant and provided for arbitration under the ICC in London as well. The contract entered into by the third defendant and Indian Chemicals was for the supply of machinery, equipment and technical information required for the implementation of the project and provided for arbitration in India. A dispute arose and Indian Chemicals sued Chemtex and the second and third defendant before the High Court of Bombay. The three defendants sought to have the proceeding stayed in favour or arbitration pursuant to Section 3 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961 (the “1961 Act”) (mirroring Article II(3) NYC). The High Court of Bombay rejected the defendants’ application, refusing to order a stay of the legal proceeding before it. The High Court remarked that the 1961 Act had been implemented to give effect to the NYC and had as its purpose the speedy settlement of disputes through arbitration. The Court referred to Section 2 of the 1961 Act (incorporating, in modified language, Articles I and II NYC), which it read in tandem with Articles I and II NYC. According to the Court, Section 2 of the 1961 Act applies when four conditions are satisfied: (i) the difference is out of a relationship considered as “commercial under the law in force in India”; (ii) the “foreign award” was made on or after 11 October 1960; (iii) the award is made in pursuance of an agreement in writing to which the NYC applies; and, (iv) the award is made in a territory that the Central Government of India has notified as also applying the NYC. Turning to Section 3 of the 1961 Act, the High Court considered that it applies when (i) there is an agreement to which Article II NYC applies; (ii) a person party to such an agreement, or a person claiming through him, commences a legal proceeding before a court against the other party to the agreement; (iii) the dispute falls within the scope of the legal proceeding; and, (iv) the other party has not “filed any written statement or has not taken any other step in the proceeding” before making the application to stay. Once these conditions are satisfied, the Court noted, a court has no discretion but to stay the legal proceeding before it, unless the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. Applying the facts of the case, the High Court considered the three contracts to be “inextricably linked” and “commercial” in nature. In making the latter point, the Court stipulated that the term “commercial” must be given a liberal construction. Nonetheless, the Court stressed, characterising a contract as “commercial” was not suffice for Section 2 of the 1961 Act to apply: according to the Court, the relationship must be considered commercial “under the law in force in India”. This language, the Court reasoned, requires that it be “established that [the relationship] is commercial by virtue of a provision of law or an operative legal principle in force in India”. Further to that, the High Court held that Section 3 could not apply as it only made reference to a person commencing legal action when that person is a party to “an agreement”. This, the Court reasoned, indicated that Section 3 of the 1961 Act has no application in a situation where there is a “plurality of agreements [which] converge on disputes and differences which arise out of a single transaction or series of transactions”. Commenting, obiter, on the other conditions of Section 3, the Court found that the arbitration agreements were capable of being performed and that the dispute brought before it fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement in the guarantee. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1373&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
